Would you be willing to pay more NI or tax to fund the NHS and social care?

Sluffy wrote:That's why Labour can't and haven't attacked them on that point

Sluffy wrote:
And even YOU SAY IT!!!

So if you do understand the difference, why are you claiming I said Labour haven't attacked the Tories on it?

They have done consistently so what are you on about?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:That's why Labour can't and haven't attacked them on that point

Sluffy wrote:
And even YOU SAY IT!!!

So if you do understand the difference, why are you claiming I said Labour haven't attacked the Tories on it?

They have done consistently so what are you on about?

Attacked with nothing more than name calling really haven't they?

In political terms the question of Labour is 'Where's the beef???

Because there isn't any!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where%27s_the_beef%3F

You know it goes something like this -

Conservativies - we are putting forward this policy on financing the NHS and social care.

Labour - boo, hiss, you are hurting the poor, we won't vote for it.

Conservatives (and everybody else) - well what plans have you to finance the NHS and social care then?

Labour - 

They’ve criticised the policy, you said they hadn’t.

I’ve said multiple times (before you did), that Labour’s lack of policy on this is a mistake in my eyes - but it’s clearly a strategy.

Whenever you’re out of your depth you just go in circles.

Taxing landlords?

I'm afraid most recent Labour policy meetings start, and end, rather like this.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:They’ve criticised the policy, you said they hadn’t.

I’ve said multiple times (before you did), that Labour’s lack of policy on this is a mistake in my eyes - but it’s clearly a strategy.

Whenever you’re out of your depth you just go in circles.

Me go in around in circles?

That's very rich coming from someone who does exactly that all the time!

It is self evident that Labour has NO alternative and costed policy.

If they had they would be shoving down the governments throat to show how bad theirs was.

The criticism of the policy from the Labour party is absolutely meaningless and carry's no weight - it is just rhetoric - empty words because they know they haven't got anything else.

If you really believe that it is all a strategy to keep a better plan they have hidden up their sleeve or something then you're even more naive than I thought you were!

It would not surprise me in the least that Labour have been beavering away like mad this last week or so to come up with something, anything, so they at least can unveil something at Conference shortly.

Even that might me mightily fudged because if they propose a tax on the rich (what else have they got otherwise?), then the Conservatives will use that to beat them over the heads with from then to the General Election!

They aren't going to overturn a 78 seat majority with a tax rise policy believe you me!

I can't see them not having something to put to Conference as that would stand out like a sore thumb on such a key issue.

So if they really did have a better policy in place why not get it in last week and crow about it during Conference having already shot the Tory plan to ribbons?

And if it is a strategy to keep it under wraps why then unveil it at conference (if they do) and suffered the universal scorn and ridicule from the Tory's and the media interviewers that they have endured for the last week or so?

Let's be blunt.

Johnson is possibly the worst PM we've ever had, the Tory Minsters the least trustworthy (I can't believe how they lined up to back Cummings when everybody know he was lying about the Barnard Castle affair) and Covid by and large mismanaged and Labour is STILL seen as having nothing to offer the country.  Christ Starmer is about to rebrand himself because he virtually still anonymous in the eyes of most electors.

You'd think it would be a walk in the park for Labour to get this lot out and they should be knocking seven bells out of them at every opportunity with this issue being a wide open goal for them!

Instead we get idealist's like you who somehow believe Labour "criticised the policy" and that they have an existing and better one in existence but just keeping quiet about it for now!

Laughable, it really is!

okocha wrote:Taxing landlords?

Shhhhhh!  It's a secret don't you know?

Part of the master plan that Labour are keeping quiet on!

To be really clear for you Sluffy - I’ve no idea if they have a better policy agreed on this, they haven’t showed much policy making under Starmer (I’ve criticised them for that a few times - do you recall that?).

My view (repeating it for you again) is they haven’t released their own policy to avoid scrutiny and not detract from the negative focus on the government’s. Two years (ish) out from an election opposition won’t release fully costed policy every time.

You are so desperate you again resort to misrepresenting my views. Second time on this thread alone.

Here’s a 3 bullet point summary of your work this week:

- ‘Boris’s tax is unfair - but the world isn’t fair’ - you spend all day defending it but won’t say explicitly whether you back it.

- ‘Wealth taxes penalise your father in law and benefit low income Asian families’ - you won’t say specifically what wealth tax you’re talking about, so we’ll just say all of them are.

- ‘Wealth taxes are unpopular’ - any tax is unpopular including the rise in NI, so another meaningless statement.


Do you have an opinion to add or are you just sitting on the fence criticising every side again?

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/labour-takes-shock-lead-in-the-polls-289716/

Significant public reaction to N.I. increase. More misjudgement by PM?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:To be really clear for you Sluffy - I’ve no idea if they have a better policy agreed on this, they haven’t showed much policy making under Starmer (I’ve criticised them for that a few times - do you recall that?).

My view (repeating it for you again) is they haven’t released their own policy to avoid scrutiny and not detract from the negative focus on the government’s. Two years (ish) out from an election opposition won’t release fully costed policy every time.

You are so desperate you again resort to misrepresenting my views. Second time on this thread alone.

Here’s a 3 bullet point summary of your work this week:

- ‘Boris’s tax is unfair - but the world isn’t fair’ - you spend all day defending it but won’t say explicitly whether you back it.

- ‘Wealth taxes penalise your father in law and benefit low income Asian families’ - you won’t say specifically what wealth tax you’re talking about, so we’ll just say all of them are.

- ‘Wealth taxes are unpopular’ - any tax is unpopular including the rise in NI, so another meaningless statement.


Do you have an opinion to add or are you just sitting on the fence criticising every side again?

1- I back funding being found to help the NHS and to cap social care costs.  'Boris Tax' is the only one on  the table and there's no alternative plans (other than rhetoric) from Labour or anyone else.

These issues have to be addressed soon/now as things will only get much worse.

Better to make a start and adapt funding plans in the future if better ones come along.

If Labour HAS a better plan now, wouldn't it be better for all of us if they put it in the public domain and embarrassed the government to amend theirs?

Of course it would in every sense.

They clearly haven't got one.

2 - I've no idea what you are talking about?

The ex's dad is in a care.

Care homes are provided by the private sector.

The private sector charges for the services.

Residents pay for the service.

In the cases where they have assets, they often need to sell them to pay the charges.

Local authorities will pay the charges for people who need social care and have no money.

There is no direct taxation involved in what I've been discussing in this instance.

'Boris's Tax' will mean that the state will take on these costs after a resident contributes the first £86k.

I can't tell you what wealth taxes impact on the ex's dad or the Asian Lady because there currently are non.

I assume you are ignorant of all this???

I can only tell you how a wealth tax COULD effect them if BROUGHT IN by any party and clearly Labour have mumbled somethings about this, had something in their last manifesto and Burnham made some mention to the LSE report - but non of these are have any detail to them (the LSE report only says the revenue deriving from various 'what if' scenarios).

I did so to highlight the difficulties party's have of formulating such wealth taxes as they can now impact on low income family's who own high value assets (their homes).

3 All taxes are unpopular - what is there to disagree about? - however services have to be financed by some means hence taxation.

The difference between raising NI and a wealth tax is basically a political decision - and in its crudest form, less people will vote against it at the polls than if a wealth tax was imposed instead.

That's why Labour under Blair raised NI for NHS funding 20 years ago, why Boris is doing the same thing now and why Labour don't have a fully costed wealth tax plan to put on the table now - they are loathed to have one if they can avoid it!

(And yes I know Corbyn had one in his manifesto but they lost that election by a landslide didn't they!)

So am I sitting on the fence?

Well I've said something needed doing and Boris is doing something.

I said it might not be the best of plans but better to start now and develop it as time goes on.

Do I agree in a wealth tax, well I don't believe people who have worked hard all their life's to better themselves and their family's should be penalised.

I also believe those that need help should be given it.

Governments decide how to satisfy both.

People elect governments.

Up to them if they want to change it at the next elections.

Most will vote for what is best for them.

That's how it works.

Pay partly by abandoning white elephant projects like HS2?

Sluffy wrote:
1. The difference between raising NI and a wealth tax is basically a political decision - and in its crudest form, less people will vote against it at the polls than if a wealth tax was imposed instead.


2. Do I agree in a wealth tax, well I don't believe people who have worked hard all their life's to better themselves and their family's should be penalised.

1. Debatable of course, but we'll see.

2. Penalised is an emotive choice of word, nobody gets rich on their own and paying tax to help others less fortunate is revered by some (clearly not by you and most of the right).

Our regressive tax system has created one of the most unequal societies in the world (2nd only to the US in the OECD i believe). Surely you see an issue with that and recognise it needs to be addressed?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:

Sluffy wrote:
1. The difference between raising NI and a wealth tax is basically a political decision - and in its crudest form, less people will vote against it at the polls than if a wealth tax was imposed instead.


2. Do I agree in a wealth tax, well I don't believe people who have worked hard all their life's to better themselves and their family's should be penalised.

1. Debatable of course, but we'll see.

2. Penalised is an emotive choice of word, nobody gets rich on their own and paying tax to help others less fortunate is revered by some (clearly not by you and most of the right).

Our regressive tax system has created one of the most unequal societies in the world (2nd only to the US in the OECD i believe). Surely you see an issue with that and recognise it needs to be addressed?

Well I've worked all my life and paid my taxes.

From what I earned and paid taxes on I saved, and had to pay taxes on the interest from these savings (is that fair?).

I spent my savings on night school fees to better myself.

From the qualifications I gained I progressed in my career and saved to buy a house - paid with money I'd paid tax on already.

Why then should I or anyone else have to pay a proposed wealth tax on the home I bought with money I'd already paid tax on - isn't that being penalised for working, saving, bettering myself and giving my family a good home?

Certainly feels like it to me.

Wouldn't a fairer tax be on what we purchase - then everybody will be taxed equally?

The problem with that is it directly effects the economy - VAT is an example of a purchase tax, look how the recent holiday on stamp duty had a direct result on the demand of buying properties and it reverting back will slow demand again.

There is no 'good' tax, otherwise every political would levy it and not worry about the pros and cons of NI v Wealth taxation or purchase taxes, etc.

As for our tax system being regressive and unequal I don't know about that, all I know is that I wasn't born into privilege, I came from a very poor family (we all were where I lived).  I remember when I went to grammar school one of my mates was moaning about his dad not driving him to somewhere or other, and how unfair that was - to which I replied you are lucky your dad has a car, mine doesn't - seems I was one of the only kids in my class who didn't have a car - true story.

I simply use whatever brains I was born with, had the love and good upbringing from my parents, to 'do the right things in life' and worked hard.

I knew my parents couldn't support me for three years at uni, so I paid for night school and got qualified the only way I could, (going to uni was free back then remember - I had to self fund getting my higher education - and work at the same time!).

I don't have a chip on my shoulder that others had advantages I didn't and equally I've seen far too many poor and low paid live and abuse the state.

I can't change the world, the only thing I can do and have done is try and better myself and provide for my love ones.

Why then should I (or my daughter who will inherit what I have left when I die) be taxed on something I've bought with money I had already been taxed on previously?

Is that something I should 'revere' to do???

Idealistically isn't the fairest system 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'?

It sounds perfect on paper, the problem is most people want to keep what they've worked for OR not work in the first place and get free handouts!

You know the 'Why do only fools and horses work?' type attitude.

If there's a wealth tax then I'll pay it, I don't have much choice in that - but I do have a choice who to vote for.

...and both Labour and Conservatives know that and that's why Boris didn't propose one and that's why Labour isn't rushing to show their plan IF they even have one (because they know it is a vote loser).

The only way Labour will get back in is if Conservatives continue to make a balls of everything and I assume this is why the Cabinet reshuffle is taking place, getting rid of the most error prone and clearing the decks for an election in two years time.

Also this...

T.R.O.Y. wrote:...nobody gets rich on their own...

...odd think to say, seems you have some very fixed preconceived ideas?

Fwiw I got what I have by my own endeavours - no one helped me but myself through using the brain I was given and plenty of hard work.

I didn't inherit anything, I wasn't given anything other than the love and sacrifice of my parents and free schooling up to secondary school level (uni was free too but my parents didn't have the means to support me for a further three years (I went on to get a Masters - so that would have involved even more years) when I could go out to work and support myself which I did).

It may not have been easy and it certainly was very demanding and hard work at times but the opportunity was there for everyone and I'm certainly not the only kid the took it and succeeded.

I imagine the opportunity is still there for those who want to better themselves and I'm sure plenty take it too.

It's a pretty well known quote of Elizabeth Warren's, not the best but the underlying point is solid:


“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Fundamentally we all get massive benefits from living in a country with strong community and public services - just look at you - went to grammar school and university for free!

'I'm alright Jack' is too common a view from those on the right. If you are fortunate enough to have made a success of yourself, recognise your privilege and look at those less fortunate.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:It's a pretty well known quote of Elizabeth Warren's, not the best but the underlying point is solid:


“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Fundamentally we all get massive benefits from living in a country with strong community and public services - just look at you - went to grammar school and university for free!

'I'm alright Jack' is too common a view from those on the right. If you are fortunate enough to have made a success of yourself, recognise your privilege and look at those less fortunate.

Do you actually read what I've wrote???

I didn't go to university - I made that abundantly clear!

Anyway -

I've paid a lifetime of taxes.

I still pay taxes for the roads, police, army and all the rest - I am one of those who have paid back probably far more than I've ever taken out.

There's plenty who have not and some who have never worked or paid anything into the pot in the first place!.

It's a privilege to have become a success you say???

It most certainly isn't!

I've earned my success by hard work, endeavour and sacrifice - I spent years in the evenings in classrooms doing qualifications I paid for whilst working six days a week in two jobs even three at times!

Why would anyone bother to do that to better themselves for it to be taken away in taxes - on something you have already paid taxes on to buy in the first place???

Why should people like me be double taxed on the same money they've only earned once when some don't get taxed at all?

I see an unfairness in this - an inequality if you like - nothing to do with an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

Yes there are people who for whatever reasons need help - but I know plenty who play the system - I bet we all do!

We don't live in a perfect world, neither do we live in an idealised world that you seem to inhabit either.

I live in the real world with all its imperfections, I pay my way, always have, so why should I have a further tax burden thrust upon me because I've worked hard and prospered when others haven't?

If they introduce a tax I will pay but the party that introduces it won't get my vote thereafter, neither will many others in the same boat too - and that is why nobody has any real intent of introducing one no matter what Kier might say at the dispatch box or at conference (if he actually does).

Ah that’s actually depressed me reading that Sluffy, your views on privilege are instructive though - a few topics makes more sense knowing how you view yourself.

Clearly we have polar opposite views of the world, so what’s the point in arguing? Good luck to you.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Ah that’s actually depressed me reading that Sluffy, your views on privilege are instructive though - a few topics makes more sense knowing how you view yourself.

Clearly we have polar opposite views of the world, so what’s the point in arguing? Good luck to you.

My views on privilege???

What views are those I've not stated any?

Privilege
noun

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.


I've never claimed any right, advantage, immunity, etc.

What I have said is

1 - I've worked damned hard for what I've got.

2 - I've paid tax on it.

3 - I consider in it unfair to be taxed again on it.

Would you go into a shop and buy something and on your way out the shop owner says, you can afford it so I'm going to charge you again!

How in your world is that a privilege???

I see that as being punished for working hard, saving, looking after my family and not living off the state.

I've never mentioned anything about feeling privileged, or special in any way - I've been talking about fairness and equality ffs!

Fairness and equality isn't just reserved for the poor you know - it applies to everyone.

You're free to judge me any way you want, it doesn't matter to me, I won't lose any sleep over it.

I tend to view you as someone whose heart is in the right place but views are strongly weighted towards left wing ideology and unable or unwilling to accept there are two sides to every story and listen to them, or consider there might be more to it than your fixed and preconceived views on them.

No one has a monopoly of being in the right all the time.

I wish you well too, you will be missed if you are planning to leave the site?